Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 04:38:21 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks  (Read 3068 times)
amacar2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 09:11:14 AM
 #21

I like this part
Quote
a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   
   ████████████████████████████████  
     ▀██████████████████████████▀    
        ▀████████████████████▀       
          ████████████████▀         
            █████████████           
            ▀████████████▀           
             ▀██████████▀            
              ██████████             
               ████████              
               ▀██████▀              
                ██████               
                  ▀                  
.
.trade.io.
██████
██████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
██████
██████

▄██████████████████▄
███       ▀███████
███       █████████
███       █████████
███       █████████
███              ██
███   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ███
███   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ███
███              ███
███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███
██████████████████▀

▄██████████████████▄
███████████▀ ███████
█████████▀   ███████
███████▀     ██▀ ███
███ ▀▀       █▄▄████
███          █▀▀▀▀██
███ ▄▄       ███████
██████▄     █▄ ▀███
█████████▄   ███▄███
███████████▄ ███████
▀██████████████████▀

▄██████████████████▄
████████████████████
███████████████▀▀ ██
█████████▀▀     ███
████▀▀     ▄█▀   ███
███▄    ▄██      ███
█████████▀      ▄██
█████████▄     ████
█████████████▄ ▄████
████████████████████
▀██████████████████▀
██████
██████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
██████
██████
.
.Join the Trading Revolution.
1511109501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109501
Reply with quote  #2

1511109501
Report to moderator
1511109501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109501
Reply with quote  #2

1511109501
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511109501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109501
Reply with quote  #2

1511109501
Report to moderator
1511109501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109501
Reply with quote  #2

1511109501
Report to moderator
1511109501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109501
Reply with quote  #2

1511109501
Report to moderator
Thatstinks
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 12:53:02 PM
 #22

So here is a question, in order to move forward with Extension Blocks, what needs to be done and who needs to agree?
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 03:01:28 PM
 #23

I like this part
Quote
a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134


Betcoin.ag - Casino, Sports, Poker


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
 #24

So, extension block is similar with LN/other side-chain ? It's good idea as long as miners/community support it and have been tested throughly, so another incident such as lots BU nodes crashed won't happen.
But, i wonder if it have privacy/decentralization concern/risk such as what happen with LN, especially with lots of FUD around it.

arklan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 03:47:40 PM
 #25

I like this part
Quote
a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

because that consensus will never happen.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 04:44:36 PM
 #26

purse and bitpay..

hmm
DCG again.. hmmm

though extension blocks is another backdoor implementation.. it still does not address the issues of native key users.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 05:50:27 PM
 #27

I like this part
Quote
a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

because that consensus will never happen.

IF everyone agrees then it can happen, so this is not a reason.


andrew24p
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 09:01:08 PM
 #28

extension blocks arent going to get passed, the devs seemed to be pretty split on them and feel like they are sacrificing security for community consensus.

█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█                                                                                                                         █
█                                                                                                                         █
█          ██     ██       ▄█▄        ██        ██     ▄██████▄    ██████████    ████████    ██████▄                      █
█          ██     ██       ███        ██        ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██      ██ ██       ███      ███     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██     ▄██ ██▄      ████    ████     ██              ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          █████████     ██   ██      ██ ██  ██ ██      ▀█████▄        ██        ███████     ██   ▄█▀                     █
█          ██     ██     ██   ██      ██  █▄▄█  ██            ██       ██        ██          █████                        █
█          ██     ██    ▄███████▄     ██  ████  ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██   ██                      █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ▀██████▀        ██        ████████    ██     ██                    █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
M   A   R   K   E   T   P   L  A   C   E  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█

                     The first token offering total buyback
─────❯❯❯ICO Starts : 28th of November 2017❮❮❮─────

❖TWITTER
❖TELEGRAM
❖WHITEPAPER
❖FACEBOOK
❖ANN THREAD
SLACK
BitFinnese
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:04:55 PM
 #29

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

███████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████

     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            █     ███           ███   ▄▄▄          █          ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
   ▄███████████▄         ███     ███         ███    ███         ███         ██████████████▄
 ▄███▀       ▀█▀        █████     ███       ███     ███        █████        ███        ▀▀███
▄██▀                   ███ ███     ███     ███      ███       ███ ███       ███          ███
███                   ███   ███     ███   ███       ███      ███   ███      ███        ▄▄███
███                  ███     ███     ███ ███        ███     ███     ███     ██████████████▀
▀██▄                ███       ███     █████         ███    ███       ███    ███▀▀▀▀▀███▄
 ▀███▄       ▄█▄   ███         ███     ███          ███   ███         ███   ███      ▀███▄
   ▀███████████▀  ███           ███     █           ███  ███           ███  ███        ▀███▄
     ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ███
                ███
▌  .
anonymoustroll420
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:11:45 PM
 #30

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

Whats funny is BU plans to add LN too.

Please don't stop us from using ASICBoost which we're not using
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:16:50 PM
 #31

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

andrew24p
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:19:30 PM
 #32

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

The miners are screwing themselves over by proving to be bad actors.

█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█                                                                                                                         █
█                                                                                                                         █
█          ██     ██       ▄█▄        ██        ██     ▄██████▄    ██████████    ████████    ██████▄                      █
█          ██     ██       ███        ██        ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██      ██ ██       ███      ███     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██     ▄██ ██▄      ████    ████     ██              ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          █████████     ██   ██      ██ ██  ██ ██      ▀█████▄        ██        ███████     ██   ▄█▀                     █
█          ██     ██     ██   ██      ██  █▄▄█  ██            ██       ██        ██          █████                        █
█          ██     ██    ▄███████▄     ██  ████  ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██   ██                      █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ▀██████▀        ██        ████████    ██     ██                    █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
M   A   R   K   E   T   P   L  A   C   E  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█

                     The first token offering total buyback
─────❯❯❯ICO Starts : 28th of November 2017❮❮❮─────

❖TWITTER
❖TELEGRAM
❖WHITEPAPER
❖FACEBOOK
❖ANN THREAD
SLACK
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:20:25 PM
 #33



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:52:18 PM
 #34



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

AngryDwarf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 11:02:15 PM
 #35

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

It actually does not need a block limit. Miners can dynamically produce their own block sizes to cope with mempool transaction pool demand pressure and by artificially delaying lower paying transactions fees. If bitcoin price rockets out of the solar system, big blocks full of 1 sat transaction fees and no coinbase reward will work perfectly fine.

Scaling and transaction rate: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
Do not allow demand to exceed capacity. Do not allow mempools to forget transactions. Relay all transactions. Eventually confirm all transactions.
wck
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 12:52:15 AM
 #36



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.


Seems like there could be an enforced minimal fee to prevent spam and past that a sliding schedule that controls how soon the transaction gets put in a block.   While it would be artificial it could increase fee revenue.    After all why should buying a car and driving it off the lot be the same as buying a cup of coffee?   If you needed quicker confirmation you should pay a higher fee for that.

There are several dynamics that can be played around with:
1) Size of transaction --- basically what we have now  ... if you use a lot of data it costs more
2) Speed of the transaction --- Seems logically that there should be a fee schedule and low fee payers simply wait longer even if the wait is artificial.
3) Amount of the transaction --- Maybe it does make sense to have some very small fee the scales on on transaction size.  Say something like 0.01%  <== Okay I know this is evil     
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:09:54 AM
 #37



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.


You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:24:00 AM
 #38



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.


You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.
yes i read it.
I reference it in my essay:
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0
Quote
Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.


jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:40:27 AM
 #39



as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.


You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.
yes i read it.
I reference it in my essay:
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0
Quote
Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.



I'm slightly confused on your position because it sounds like you agree with Peter that EC can solve the issues...on the other hand, Peter
is advocating that we shouldnt and neednt have a limit that is below market demand, while you are saying blockszie cannot outpace adoption.
I'm not sure if there's an actual disagreement or you're just describing a different property of the natural fee market.

 


_nur
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:55:47 AM
 #40

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

That would be very good if that is true but if not then we will still be suffering from slow confirmation and many will shift to ethereum. But aside from increasing the blocksize I hope segwit could do something about the miner fees which is very high right now. But anyway if 4mb effective blocksize will be implemented successfully then it will be time for bitcoin to be used in shops not only online.

and many will shift from ethereum to tezos due to dictatorship and centralization not to mention the hardfork problem that leads to ethereum classic and also the unsecure javascript unverified code
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!